This is only temporary. If Google wins the ban they're seeking, it will resolve itself in a matter of weeks.

You see, the patent shitstorm in the phone and tablet arena is all centered around Apple. When apple sues someone, everyone else jumps in, knowing that the company's legal team will be busy with Apple, giving them a better chance of winning; plus, if the majority of suits are successful, there's a possibility of one less competitor.

Of course, when you're being sued for infringing on someone else's obvious and likely invalid patents, you fire back with counter-suits for the obvious and likely invalid patents of yours that they are likely violating. So, every time Apple files suit against someone, all their other competitors jump in; but then, the party being sued doubles the number of lawsuits by counter-suing everyone.

Of course, had Apple never sued, initially, the smaller competitors wouldn't have had the balls to and, as soon as Apple is done, the smaller competitors will be willing to license, or cross-license, their patents, and all of those suits and counter-suits between everyone else will be done.

I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so. They'll be forced, at that point, to quit suing everyone, which will close the door to lawsuits from smaller companies who see an opportunity to strike while the enemy is distracted; those companies would then license and cross-license.

In short, everyone will stop suing everyone, in the mobile phone and table arena at least, when Apple stops suing everyone. Of course, if someone ever has a valid claim, I'm sure it will still be raised, but the shitstorm will subside when Apple is forced to quit stirring it up.

I hope Google wins this one. Not because I wish any harm to Apple, but because Apple will be forced to respond by licensing and, where appropriate, cross-licensing their patents where the currently refuse to do so.

I don't like this line of thought. This massive cross-licensing nonsense is what keeps the little guys and potential entrepreneurs from entering markets. Why is the solution to obvious and likely invalid patents to create some mega-consortium of tech giants who all have a patent cross-licence agreement? So unless a company has a huge battlechest of obvious and likely invalid patents they can't even consider competing with these guys. Sounds kind of like an oligarchy to me.

Personally, I see one benefit of Google winning this case: It might wake people up to the fact that these ridiculous patent spats affect them as consumers as well. It might bring some bureaucrats to the realization that rubber-stamping any patent a tech giant submits is a bad idea. Most importantly, hopefully it becomes a political issue that politicians have to take action on.

We should be rooting for the outcome that will most likely lead to patent reform. That's probably Google/Motorola, as a ban on Apple products would certainly get a bunch of yuppies' panties in a bunch. But if all their victory would lead to is a cross-license agreement (which it probably would) then I find it hard to care one way or the other. I don't care who sues who - what I have a problem with is the legal system that allows them to do it. It doesn't matter if Company X has too much integrity to file frivolous lawsuits when Companies Y and Z will. Companies Y and Z will just end up more successful. Integrity is something that must be forced upon a corporation by way of the rule of law (can't wait for the Randians to read that one).

They can patent new inventions, but those new inventions are almost always going to be dependent upon old, patented inventions. The graduates didn't enter the market, nor was it reasonable for them to do so in this legal environment. Thus, the market is deprived of true competition.

Your example is a counterpoint to your argument. In the case where an entrepreneur patents something new, the big boys simply buy the patent or buy out the entrepreneur. The big companies get it cheap because entrepreneurs lack the patent war chest to enter the market with their patents, so it is absolutely worthless to them unless they sell it off... to a big company. The end result is the same - only big boys can play in the market.

Older inventions like perhaps, "It's got a radio in it and it makes phone calls and has some type of traditional telephone keypad buttons that appear, and has an antenna, and authenticates to the cellular telephone network, and has a processor in it?"

Pretty sure that Motorola has patents on all of those things and gazillions more. Maybe Apple can downgrade iPhone functionality to iPod Touch if they don't want to settle. But only over WiFi. No touching the cellular/mobile data network. There's A Patent For T

Apple is currently fighting against (and started the fight) Motorola Mobility. THIS suit is Motorola Mobility fighting back. That ignores all the OTHER anti Android suits by Apple against Google customers. So you can take it as a retaliation for the suit against Motorola Mobility or in defense of their customers either way it is defensive not aggressive.

When you start a fight it is your fault if the other side tries to rip your nuts off and shove them down your throat.

You must be joking. Apple is ripping off Motorola! Motorola has been making phones for years before the iPhone. Apple just waltzed in and stole dozens of their patented ideas about how to make phones. They could never have made the iPhone without stealing Motorola's patented ideas.

Same paradigm, also so says the lawsuits.

Notice how you can tell a crazy idea (i.e. a software patent) by how it goes to nonsense (no one can make a phone in the US) when led to its logical conclusion?

Yes, really. Apple - a bunch of hypocrites that willfully infringe, and build their own patent portfolio to countersue rather than license. It's how the game is played, and the game itself is the problem. You can only really blame Apple for their pretensions to some kind of moral high ground, when they are more than smart enough to know better.

Motorola is just one of their many victims. They happen to have many patented, original ideas on telephony that Apple stole when they came late into the phone busines

I wouldn't go that far, but Google's personality is one where it doesn't agressively go out to destroy the other party. I forget the exact words Steve Jobs used when talking about destroying Android, but if Google were equal with Apple in that respect, they would have done this LONG ago. Most often, Google is the party being sued, not the party filing suit.

I do not see Google as white hat and Apple as black. I see Google as a marketng company which depends on its own image being briight and shiny. Apple is a product making company and depends on its prodicts image as being bright and shiny. Their motives are quite different.

One is a bunch of look and feel patents and functionality patents and mostly Apple is doing the suing.

The other are a bunch of older patents about communication. And there Apple is supposed to be paying 2.5% if it is not under a co-licensing but thinks that's too high because their phones aren't $40... and in that one I have a tough time seeing how Apple is going to win.

Apple picked a fist fight. Motorola/Google had a knife and told Apple to back off. Apple instead charged and now got stabbed

Hopefully it was in the gut. I really want to see them suffer for their arrogant thuggery. It's only right. For Apple to just accept a meager dose of humility with a cross-license at this point would be very disappointing.

If someone sells a $1000 laptop with a cell phone in it, should Motorola get a full percentage of that, too?One would hope the contract language would specify this, but doesn't sound like it.

Motorola's position and I believe they are right is that the The FRAND license would entitle Apple to the same terms as anyone else selling a $1000 laptop with a phone in it gets. Which is no one and so Motorola can charge what they want (up to 2.5% of $1000). Apple's position is that Motorola must patent at 2.5% of the $40 phone and the fact that the phone is only sold conjoined with a laptop is irrelevant.

You seriously do NOT know what a FRAND patent is, and that it can NOT be used to sue someone.

You absolutely can sue over a FRAND patent. FRAND means Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory. The patent holder must offer to license the patent to all comers under these terms. If someone decides not to take the offered license and still infringes the patent then the patent holder can still sue.

That is not what is happening to Motorola and Samsung here. In the case of Motorola Apple is trying to get around paying the fees that others had to pay for the FRAND rights because it was a percentage and their phone more expensive. In the case of Samsung, Samsung is arguing those patents are part of broad cross licensing agreements.

That's kind of the point. Motorola has NOT been offering patents to Microsoft and Apple at the terms they have offered to other people. (They want literally orders of magnitude more money for the patents.)

If it were that clear-cut, there would be no lawsuit. Motorola is offering these patents under exactly the same terms that they offer to everyone else. These terms are a fixed percentage of the final device cost. This satisfied the Fair and Non-Discriminatory parts of FRAND. Apple is arguing that they are not Reasonable, because the same percentage of a $20 dumb phone and a $600 smartphone is a very significant difference for using the patents in exactly the same way.

In your argument you anthropomorphize a company (Google) and that is a very misleading and dangerous thing to do. Companies are not persons, they don't have long lasting morals and personality guiding its actions. A company's actions are result of an emergent behaviour [wikipedia.org] arising from (and infinitely more complex then) its leadership decisions. Because the emergence is so complex, the “personality” of a company can change inexplicably and it is even possible for a company with good people to do evil things.

TL;DR: companies are not people and their past good actions are not evidence of future good actions.

The same can be said about real, actual people, though. I have lived my life largely as a good person, but there is nothing stopping me from going out tomorrow, shooting a bunch of people, and robbing a bank(other than my rather large detest of jail).

Corporations are given the same provisions as people in the eyes of the government, and generally you can use psychology to determine future actions of a company just as easily as you can that of a person.

TL;DR: Companies ARE seen as people, and it IS possible to determine their future actions from their past actions(or those of their leadership).

I wouldn't go that far, but Google's personality is one where it doesn't agressively go out to destroy the other party.

You are right: trying to block every one if your competitor's products isn't aggressive at all.

You can tolerate a yappy little dog nipping at your heals for only so long. Eventually your tolerance will be ground down and you have to punt the little fucker over the fence into the neighbour's yard. He asked for it.

Ah yes, that's it. Too bad he never saw his delusion become reality...or actually, too bad he never saw reality crush his delusion. He might be remembered for a lot of great and wonderful things by lots of people. I can't get past his delusional desire to heal himself "different" which resulted in his slow and painful death. He had a curable cancer and refused mainstream medicine. I can't get beyond that kind of thinking because it, no doubt, was also connected to his business and marketing manner.

And anything he [Apple] stole was acceptable and even honorable. Meanwhile, turnabout is not fair play and punishable by death. Personalities like that are disturbing. I know, there's lots of them... our presidents, politicians and most all bankers, CEOs and the like.

Anyway, Android is not a stolen product. It may be mimmickry... but then, are there really so many good options for a touch interface? PalmOS was okay. WindowsCE was okay but painful. Apple got it right and that's wonderful. Apple got upset when Microsoft copied the good stuff but in the end Microsoft won and Apple should have learned its lesson. But that's the thing with delusional leadership. They don't acknowledge being wrong and so they don't learn from their mistakes.

Except it's totally not the same situation. Apple has been attacking every single android manufacturer plus google itself for a very long time. This is retaliation. Somebody HAS to deal with apple. I'm not an idiot, I don't fantasize about how good and altruistic google is. It's a corporation, and it defends its interests, sure. But this move can't be considered a cold-blooded attack, it's self-defense against a patent troll who openly stated their intentions to use their every resource to destroy android.

If you consider enforcing your FRAND requirements "attacking" then yes. It started when Apple REFUSED to pay the same FRAND terms that EVERY OTHER PHONE MAKER pays to Motorola, for their FRAND patents required to make a cell phone.

It hasn't escalated to Mutually Assured Destruction tactics yet. Most of the people Apple is suing just say "No, it's not infringing, here's why, leave us alone." MAD would imply that they were aggressively striking back instead of defending and dismissing the attacks by a floundering former-leader in their market.

What's that? Over 60% market share for Android? How interesting! We'd better sue to make sure our choice-preventing closed-everything handset with major design issues on both software and hardware

I doubt it will force patent reform, as there is quite a bit of money in patent trolling these days, but if Google can use this to get Apple to BTFO in its desire to sue every thing that moves, then Google's performing a badly-needed service.

Nothing in the linked article supports the claim in the summary that they "renege[d] on a deal with the State of Illinois". All the article says is that their workforce will drop below 2500 and that consequently they will no longer be eligible for tax breaks. Nowhere does it suggest that they made any deal requiring them to retain a workforce above that level. If there is a link supporting the claim that they reneged on a deal in this matter then can someone provide it?

And, did we miss the part where the Google/Motorola Mobility deal was finalized?

The last holdout of red tape was China, and they gave it up in late May [androidpolice.com]. The deal was finalized a couple days later and a Googler was made CEO [thegadgetgurus.net]. It's been fairly quiet since then--not a whole lot of headline-busting changes to Motorolla Mobility--so I'm not surprised you haven't noticed the transition. There have been some, though, especially lately.

The complaint at the U.S. International Trade Commission claims infringement of seven Motorola Mobility patents on features including location reminders, e-mail notification and phone/video players, Motorola Mobility said today.

First, the Web 2.0 would collapse. Without Apple devices to participate in all sorts of useless "social media", the entire hipster culture would implode. This means Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, reddit and all of the other big names would be no more. (As a side-effect, there'd also be no further need for Ruby on Rails "developers" and NoSQL "experts" to build these kind of sites.)

If these hipsters aren't wasting time on web sites like those, or on trying to build the "next big startup", then they won't need to be sitting in Starbucks all day. Starbucks and its ilk could very well become the next victims!

Now you've got roving bands of hipsters on the loose, suffering severe withdrawal symptoms due to not having Apple devices in their possession, AND not having had any choco-latte-mochachinos lately. In uncontrolled outbursts, they lash out at their trust fund administrators. Stricken with fear after dealing with numerous crazed hipsters, these administrators flee their jobs, causing the financial sector to collapse into ruin.

The financial sector collapse causes economic ruin across the nation. There is no employment, imports eventually trail off, and people starve to death. Entire communities disappear, and their infrastructure crumbles. The country is destroyed.

So this is just a retaliatory action by Google. Some great court showdown is gonna happen soon, Apple is likely to unite with Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle against their arch enemy Google. So this is gonna be fun to watch.

I can see Microsoft and others going with Google as well in this case, since hurting Apple would help EVERYONE. Apple is like the Chinese government in trying to control all the people within its sphere of control and force them to do things the way it wants. The "you MUST go through the iTunes store and pay us 30 percent" crap should really be investigated by the various government departments for violations of the law.

Because Apple want to earn money doing so - they keep increasing their market share already, and they want to keep their brand identity - premium products at a premium price, with industry leading design. They don't want to become another Dell.

Yep. This is Google explaining to Apple that they aren't the only one with patents. The monster patent portfolios of all the big players have exist in part to deter other large players from launching patent wars. It is a form of 'Mutually Assured Destruction'. Apple went nuclear starting a couple of years ago. Google (and other large players) are now launching their counter-strikes to demonstrate to Apple why it is a bad idea.

If Apple has any sense (more likely now that Steve Jobs is gone) they will begin quietly trying to wind down the patent wars.

Just get rid of software patents. Get rid of them entirely. Invalidate all the current ones and stop issuing new software patents. They are essentially patents on math and certain long numbers, which is absurd.

Maybe the thought of not being able to buy iPads and iPhones will wake up the U.S. to how badly screwed up the patent system is? Or maybe that thought will stop ITC from treating the case the same way it has treated cases against MotoGoogle.

The gloves are really off, the floodgates are open, the fat is on the fire etc. Although Google inherited cases from Motorola, this is the first time Google has directly sued Apple. Google has been reticent to take on Apple directly but they don't have much choice left now.

Although Google inherited cases from Motorola, this is the first time Google has directly sued Apple. Google has been reticent to take on Apple directly but they don't have much choice left now.

I suspect Google wanted to take Apple on directly. After all, if Android develops a reputation of being a great smartphone platform provided you don't mind Apple keeping you in court until shortly after the heat death of the universe, it becomes substantially less attractive.

The problem is, as Google previously didn't manufacture any mobile phones - and were I to hazard a guess, probably didn't hold very many patents relevant to the industry - they didn't have grounds to go on the offensive.

The article says that if they retain 2500 then they get the tax breaks: if they don't, they don't. They've clearly decided that the extra payroll isn't worth the breaks so they have chosen to give them up. That's the deal. Nothing is being "reneged" on. They are complying with the agreement.

Apple has repeatedly refused to license the patents and instead continues to just use them without paying. Was anyone actually surprised to see this happen? The word inevitable comes to mind. Not that I am particularly in love with the patent system, but Apple enjoys suing everyone else for patent violations and then they turn around and blatantly do it themselves. Someone at apple has been taking their stupid pills on the reg.

that is my thought, the problem with FRAND is this exactly. you license your product to one company who then sells it to another as allowed in the license. That third company then makes billions and you only get millions for your FRAND so you sue not realizing you already allowed it to happen.

Either:
A: they are desperately trying to do anything to help make their purchase of Motorola Mobile not look like the giant steaming turd that it is or
B: they purchased Motorola Mobile solely for this purpose...

Their purchase of Motorola was indeed primarily for this. They needed to be able to defend Android, and Google itself didn't have sufficient mobile patents to have a decent chance at prevailing in a court against Apple. Google + Moto on the other hand, very much the reverse.

Google's choices were - buy Nokia, RIM, Motorola, or the Nortel patents. Of that lot, Motorola made by far the most strategic sense since they had an enormous trove of on point patents, were affordable, and were already an Android partner. At the time, their losing the Nortel patent auction looked bad, but when they snapped up Motorola shortly thereafter, it all made sense.

Would they have been better off winning Nortel patents for (say) $5bn than spending $13.5+ for Motorola? [I'm counting anticipated restructuring costs in with the purchase price] Maybe. But it's entirely possible that Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. would have pushed the bidding on Nortel patents well above $5bn. Also, a lot of the Nortel patents would have been neither applicable nor remotely useful to Google. For a patent defense, Motorola is a much better fit.

Does it suck that companies have to spend billions in this fashion to create a legal defense? Yes. If you're an ardent Apple fan, it sucks that Google gets to attack Apple just because they bought a bunch of patents; if you're an ardent Google fan, it sucks that Apple is attacking Android manufacturers in the first place. For the rest of us, firing engineers and hiring lawyers does not seem a winning plan for engineers or the economy-at-large. Nice for lawyers though.

My memory is fuzzy, and I'm too lazy to research this myself, but my understanding is that part of the deal in the US (and probably other nations) that allowed the acquisition to go through was that Google would not aggressively attack others with the IP that they acquired from the deal.

Is this not the case? And if it is, wouldn't these actions be in violation of that agreement? Could Google face some sort of kickback for breaching this agreement, or possibly even an antitrust case?

Either:A: they are desperately trying to do anything to help make their purchase of Motorola Mobile not look like the giant steaming turd that it is orB: they purchased Motorola Mobile solely for this purpose...

This is all in response to Apple trying to kill the Android phone market by preventing their devices from being imported, and nothing more. Apple started all this lawsuit garbage, and deserves to be slapped down hard for the MANY cases of THEIR copying of ideas from others.

If I remember correctly the whole Motorola vs Apple ordeal or war predicates that of any other cases regarding patents. I personally think it had a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft threaded Motorola with a lawsuit which ended in Motorola taken a license on those patents. Not long after that Motorola sued Apple.

So I have a bit of sour taste in my mouth when I see people telling that this is a "defensive" stance or "only because Apple has lawsuits". Or maybe Motorola also develops crystal balls that

If I remember correctly the whole Motorola vs Apple ordeal or war predicates that of any other cases regarding patents. I personally think it had a lot to do with the fact that Microsoft threaded Motorola with a lawsuit which ended in Motorola taken a license on those patents. Not long after that Motorola sued Apple.
So I have a bit of sour taste in my mouth when I see people telling that this is a "defensive" stance or "only because Apple has lawsuits". Or maybe Motorola also develops crystal balls that they can predict the future.
I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.

Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Hello! Apple was threatening to SUE Motorola over swipe to unlock and others right when Microsoft threaned to sue them over FAT and ActiveSync. Motorolla fired back with actual litigation against the agressors. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Corrections:

Apple did not just threaten to sue Motorola over Swipe-to-Unlock, it actually did sue them [intomobile.com] and won. Swipe to unlock is a common idea, present long before any sort of smartphone or touch-screen device ever had it, and is entirely a software patent.

Motorola sued Apple and won [arstechnica.com] over the method the 3G radio chips use to time the signals to and from the tower. A hardware and software patent that is exclusively relevant to 3G mobile devices.

Apple has been the clear aggressor all along, and their patent claims are largely trollish and petty rather than valid technical patents. Please stop spreading disinformation.

I'm of the opinion that cheerleading for Motorola is a bit hypocritical. You are against "software" patents (which I am) or you are not, software patents aren't suddenly good things because it is used against a company that you hate.

There is nothing hypocritical about taking multiple factors into account in your moral judgements. You may generally be opposed to shooting strangers but think that such things are acceptable in war or in defense of your home. I'm normally against locking people in cages, but totally in favor of it when it comes to most murderers.

Life is a series of situations and what is acceptable in some situations is not in others. In this case one of the main reasons people hate Apple is because of their use of software patents. Having a policy where a company that attempts to use software patents finds itself suffering a PR hit and paying out much more heavily than they collect is not a bad outcome.

Google is good and would never sue anyone. I guess they are just looking for some more FRAND abuse smackdown.

Defensive (or even retaliatory) litigation is not looked at as unkindly as patent trolling (or other common abuses of the patent system)

Google will learn this is the worst 12.5b anyone ever spent.

Uh-huh. Google's a pretty smart company, I recollect the number of slashdot armchair analysts who say they'd regret the price they paid for youtube. I think the MM buy is going to work out just as well for them.

Demanding 100% ROI in six years is not realistic. At a nominal 8% return, it will take about 9 years to recover their money. And that's nominal (i.e., assuming a "normal" rate of return based on the empirical average). Youtube just became profitable. So it will nominally pay for itself in 9 years.

On the other hand, acquiring Youtube turned Google into a media company. Have you noticed how Google is using resources to combat copyright infringement of movies recently? Why do you think that is? To drive users to legitimately licensed Google owned media distribution channels, which will increase the rate of return of the investment.

They also control a massive content distribution infrastructure, putting pressure on other distribution networks. Cable television companies are finding that they must lower their prices for all of their services in order to compete with the internet -- the largest legitimate chunks of which are represented by Youtube, Netflix, and Hulu. Eventually, the cable companies will be nothing but ISPs with perhaps some "premium" content for subscribers. But even that is doubtful -- the media companies are much better off selling licenses to anybody who wants them. Including Google. The only thing keeping the cable companies at all relevant is their valuable networking infrastructure.

Either way, Google gets more eye balls on their pages and more licensing deals for Youtube distribution.

"I will spend my last dying breath if I need to, and I will spend every penny of Appleâ(TM)s $40 billion in the bank, to right this wrong. Iâ(TM)m going to destroy Android, because itâ(TM)s a stolen product. Iâ(TM)m willing to go thermonuclear war on this."

Looks like Google's taken them up on the offer for war since the new Dictator is carrying out the same stupid plan. Hopefully this mutually assured destruction will get Apple to pull it's head out of it's ass. You don't stay rich giving all your money to lawyers. Would you simply acquiescing to the asshole's irrational demands? I wouldn't either.

I dunno, I think it is Apple who will ultimately regret their strategy.

Even if you think Apple have brought a lot to the mobile phone space you have to acknowledge they are depending on an awful lot of other peoples IP. Pre Apple (and still between other companies) IP issues in the mobile space seem to have been handled fairly amicably. Companies competed with their products, not lawsuits. Then Apple walks in, uses everybody else's IP but is incredibly unfriendly with their own.

I think this is a mistake for two reasons.

1) Outside identified FRAND patents all these other companies with years of mobile experience will inevitably have patents on things Apple does in iPhones and IPads.2) Apple grows it's business by entering and disrupting existing markets. The existing mobile phone companies were perhaps asleep at the wheel in allowing Apple to get a foot in the door. They just viewed them as another competitor and thought they'd continue to do business the old way. No other market will make that mistake now. If Apple try to expand into a new market now then existing players will surely note their litigious nature and preemptively use whatever legal means are available to stop them getting a foot in the door.

Apple went "nuclear" without realizing what that means. You can use them if no one else also has nuclear capability or you can sit on them as a deterrent if other people do. By deploying their weapons Apple has ensured that every other company will feel it necessary to use theirs too (and in future, perhaps first).

From what I read: Apple's is using a Qualcomm communication chip in their devices. Qualcomm has already paid into the FRAND license pool (which is built into the price of their chips). That license is then extended to the customers that buy Qualcomm's chips. Since Apple (among many other companies) is Qualcomm's customer, the FRAND license is already covered.

Motorola going back and suddenly demanding 2.5% for iPhones using their FRAND looks like double dipping. If they get any kind of settlement, you will quickly see MM going after ANYBODY that uses communication chips based on their FRAND technology -- including Windows Phones, all other (non Motorola) Android phones, dumb phones, etc. Lawyers tend to keep doing what they do so long as money is involved.

Really?? Google's evil now because they're defending Android? Apple has been nothing but asshole towards all competition, filing countless frivolous lawsuits, finally Google stands up to say "have a taste of your own medicine" and that makes Google evil? Lame.

Google is probably just about as evil as Apple, but not for fighting back.